Irving v. Lipstadt

Transcripts

It may satisfy the court of course to the contrary, 1is what the intention is. That is why I would ask your 2Lordship to rule that unless they can produce that 3evidence or cross-examine on that kind of evidence, then 4they should limit their cross-examination purely to that 5kind of association, otherwise we do go into day after day 6of looking at isolated relationships or happening to be in 7the same room or whatever, which is very unsatisfactory 8I think. 9MR JUSTICE GRAY: I understand the submission you are making, 10but I should tell you this, that as I understand, anyway, 11the law, the Defendants are entitled to put forward by way 12of justification material which would support any 13defamatory meaning which the words can bear. If they are 14able to persuade me that somebody reading Professor 15Lipstadt's book could take the view that what she is 16saying is that you associate with right-wing extremists, 17even if they are not violent extremists, then it appears 18to me that, arguably at any rate, the Defendants probably 19are entitled to rely on this body of evidence. 20MR IRVING: Except that is not an issue that I have pleaded in 21my Statement of Claim. 22MR RAMPTON: Oh, yes it is. 23MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you have. 24MR IRVING: My Statement of Claim. 25MR JUSTICE GRAY: We went through it. That is why it was 26relevant to go through what Professor Lipstadt wrote as

. P-141

1well what you complain of as a meaning, because the 2Defendants are not confined, you must take it from me, to 3the meaning you put on the words. They are entitled to 4justify what she wrote in any meaning that the words can 5bear. This is all a bit technical. I am trying not to be 6unhelpful. 7MR IRVING: I appreciate it is technical. I have read the 8authorities as far as I have been able to. It is just my 9understanding of the law was that the allegation of 10extremism alone is not defamatory; holding extreme views 11is not defamatory, and to be in the same room as people 12who told extreme views is also not necessarily 13reprehensible, unless they are advocating the overthrow of 14governments by violence or something like that. 15MR JUSTICE GRAY: It may be a question of degree. Shall I hear 16what Mr Rampton says and then you can reply? 17MR RAMPTON: I am going to be both technical and I hope 18common-sensical all at the same time. First of all, if 19your Lordship turns to page 2 of the Statement of Claim, 20probably so-called, as it happens, page 14, one notices 21that there is nothing, and this is a technical point, 22about violence at all. The actual drift or thrust of this 23is: The confluence between anti-Israel, anti-semitic and 24Holocaust denial forces, including of course Mr Irving. 25There is no mention of violence there. It may be, I know 26not, that in the public mind some of the persons mentioned

. P-142

1there, perhaps Mr Faurisson or perhaps Mr Leuchter, 2perhaps even Mr Irving, is associated with an intention to 3commit violence. I doubt it. 4MR JUSTICE GRAY: And the groups particularly. 5MR RAMPTON: Sure, but it would have to be pleaded as an 6innuendo and it is not. That is the technical point. 7Even if it had been, it would make no difference at all to 8the Defendants' right to justify the words which actually 9appear on the page, which are that Mr Irving has 10contributed to a confluence between anti-Israel, 11anti-semitic Holocaust denial forces. It is that 12contribution which he, along with his associates, has been 13making these last 10 or 20 years that we wish to set out 14to prove, showing him not just sitting in a room with 15whoever might happen to be in a waiting room in a railway 16station with whoever might happen to be there, but leading 17a banner-waving bunch of neo-Nazi thugs. Your Lordship 18will see the video tomorrow. 19MR JUSTICE GRAY: This would confine you to anti-Israel, 20anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial. 21MR RAMPTON: Yes, but anybody who advocates the return of 22Nazism as a credo or ideology is automatically going to 23fit all those three categories. The fact that they may 24also wish to see a return of the Reichsmark or whatever it 25might be, has nothing to do with the case at all. 26 The fact is that the material which is punted,

. P-143

1if I may use that word, around these meetings is all 2anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial stuff. Your Lordship 3has seen quite a lot of it already. I am afraid to say, 4whether in German or in English, it is all of the same 5water. That is the first thing. 6 The second thing is this, that if one goes to 7the pleaded meaning (i). 8MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Rampton, is 9there anything else that is relevant in the book? 10MR RAMPTON: In the book, yes, under 161, line 123. These 11lines are so squashed together I cannot separate them. 12"An ardent admirer of the Nazi leader, Irving placed a 13self-portrait", etc., etc. "Irving, a self-described 14moderate fascist, established his own right-wing political 15party founded on his belief that he was meant to be a 16future leader of Britain, he is an ultra-nationalist", 17whatever that may mean, "who believes that Britain has 18been on a study path of decline accelerated by its 19misguided decision to launch a war against Nazi Germany". 20 Hitler apology is one of the leading features of 21neo-Nazism, certainly in Germany and, in my belief, in 22other parts of the world as well. It will be seen, and 23that is one of the features of this material, that its 24common theme, they celebrate the Fuhrer's birthday 25every year; they celebrate the birthdays of his close 26associates like Rudolf Hess and Martin Bormann. That is

. P-144

1very much a feature of anti-semitic, anti-Israel Holocaust 2denial scene, of which I am afraid Mr Irving is very much 3a figure of in front of the stage, at least was until the 4mid-1990s. 5MR JUSTICE GRAY: I was just going to ask you if it is right to 6say that really there is no justification put forward for 7what one might call the violence sting which might be 8conveyed even without an innuendo being pleaded. 9MR RAMPTON: Miss Rogers has corrected me. She says there is 10strictly an innuendo, but I mind not about that. She is 11quite right. It is on page 7 of the pleading somewhere or 12other. Yes, paragraphs 11 and 12. So I was wrong about 13that, but it does not make any difference because I am 14still entitled to justify the natural and ordinary 15meaning. 16MR JUSTICE GRAY: But you are not seeking, which is the 17question, to justify any meaning that Mr Irving associates 18with the sort of violent types who one rather infers for 19most of the membership of Hamas? 20MR RAMPTON: Maybe. I am certainly not seeking to justify ---- 21MR JUSTICE GRAY: Maybe is yes, is it not? You are not? 22MR RAMPTON: I do not know whether one does or whether one does 23not associate those people with violence. 24MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, you are not justifying that invitation. 25MR RAMPTON: No, I am not justifying association with 26terrorists. I am justifying association with the most